3 ms·

I'd say so. Among many other reasons, Apple made a comeback because they made it easy, and free, to develop for the Mac. Unlike Microsoft who required some heft

by tensor 17y ago

I'd say so. Among many other reasons, Apple made a comeback because they made it easy, and free, to develop for the Mac. Unlike Microsoft who required some hefty developer fees. Now Apple has not only gone back to the pay-to-develop model, but they've also gone the way of the consoles: you only get to distribute what we say you can. I think people are greatly underestimating the effect this will have on development. Ironically, it may have less effect on developers of small programs than large. Why would a company spend a large amount of money developing a complex application if they were not guaranteed that they could even sell the final product? This has already happened to Google with the Google Voice app, although I imagine they have enough money to not be affected too much. There is no defence at all for this sort of system. The app store can easily co-exist in conjunction with "unverified" apps. Hell, Apple could even say "well, first uninstall any unverified apps, then come back for support." I've never been one to harp on about software freedom, but this is too much, and you are damn right I'm scared of it. I'm scared that the public will gleefully jump on this product and set a precedent of extremely closed platforms.

jodrellblank 17y ago
The app store can easily co-exist in conjunction with "unverified" apps. Hell, Apple could even say "well, first uninstall any unverified apps, then come back for support." That's not really in Apple's interest, though is it? a) A device the user can't ruin associated with your brand. b) A device the user can ruin associated with your brand. Which would you pick in their position?
- tensor 17y ago
  The latter, because the freedom to develop would completely cement their position in the market. What they've done now is send several developers over to their competitor, Adobe being the obvious example. Their gamble is that they will outsell their competitors despite this. Time will tell if they succeed. I suppose if they really start suffering they can always open their platform at a later date.
  - m_eiman 17y ago
    They risk next to nothing by keeping tight control while there is little or no competition. If it turns out that people prefer e.g. Android because of this, they can easily change their policy and turn it into a positive PR event. If people don't buy other stuff, they probably need to spend a bit less on support for users who have installed something bad on their devices than they would with a more open system. Win-win.
    - tensor 17y ago
      Yes, and this is why I am looking at a Nexus One and perhaps one of the Android tablets. On a related note, why is it that the position of "I don't like the closed environment and will thus invest in Android" causes such fevered responses by so many people? Is it really necessary for the author of the original article to insult people such as myself by calling us "snivelling" and to tell us to "put up or shut up"? I find this article a little embarrassing for gizmodo. The situation is simple. If an open software platform really does produce better software, then likely Android will win in the long run. Some of us are buying into the model we think is better. We will likely recommend the same products to friends and family.
      - m_eiman 17y ago
        The reason for the "stop whining" thing is possibly that many proponents of Android are saying, more or less, that "normal people" should choose a device based on what they think are the important criteria instead of what the "normal people" themselves think is important. It's pretty elitist, and also missing the rather important point that a device's popularity is only partly based on its technical and ideological properties. Either way it'll be interesting to see what we end up with in a few years. Hopefully Android and whatever Microsoft comes up with will prove to be serious contenders so that we don't stagnate a la IE.
  - Lazlo_Nibble 17y ago
    Again, there were more iPhones and iPod Touches sold in 2009 than there were netbooks. It looks to me like their position in the market has been pretty well cemented without opening the platform up for "ruinination".
jstevens85 17y ago
I'm growing less concerned about it actually. If you believe that the world is moving towards web apps, then what programs you can install on your device becomes irrelevant. Google Voice runs well as a web app, and the $30 unlimited AT&T 3G plan means that users can treat web apps the same way as a local app - you don't have to worry about bandwidth or availability. Compare iPhone OS to Google Chrome OS. I understand that the browser will be the only application that can be installed on Chrome OS. Why isn't Google receive equal (or deservedly more) criticism for restricting the freedoms of its potential users and developers?
jamesbritt 17y ago
"Unlike Microsoft who required some hefty developer fees." You only had to pay for the developer tools you decided to use, and I don't recall VB[3|5|5] being all that expensive. But it's been awhile since I even considered it. Assorted Borland products may have been less expensive. Nowadays there are free .Net development tools. But I recall Microsoft as standing out in the help the give people wanting t build for their platform, back when I would still code VB for money.

by tensor 17y ago

jodrellblank 17y ago

The app store can easily co-exist in conjunction with "unverified" apps. Hell, Apple could even say "well, first uninstall any unverified apps, then come back for support." That's not really in Apple's interest, though is it? a) A device the user can't ruin associated with your brand. b) A device the user can ruin associated with your brand. Which would you pick in their position?

tensor 17y ago
The latter, because the freedom to develop would completely cement their position in the market. What they've done now is send several developers over to their competitor, Adobe being the obvious example. Their gamble is that they will outsell their competitors despite this. Time will tell if they succeed. I suppose if they really start suffering they can always open their platform at a later date.
- m_eiman 17y ago
  They risk next to nothing by keeping tight control while there is little or no competition. If it turns out that people prefer e.g. Android because of this, they can easily change their policy and turn it into a positive PR event. If people don't buy other stuff, they probably need to spend a bit less on support for users who have installed something bad on their devices than they would with a more open system. Win-win.
  - tensor 17y ago
    Yes, and this is why I am looking at a Nexus One and perhaps one of the Android tablets. On a related note, why is it that the position of "I don't like the closed environment and will thus invest in Android" causes such fevered responses by so many people? Is it really necessary for the author of the original article to insult people such as myself by calling us "snivelling" and to tell us to "put up or shut up"? I find this article a little embarrassing for gizmodo. The situation is simple. If an open software platform really does produce better software, then likely Android will win in the long run. Some of us are buying into the model we think is better. We will likely recommend the same products to friends and family.
    - m_eiman 17y ago
      The reason for the "stop whining" thing is possibly that many proponents of Android are saying, more or less, that "normal people" should choose a device based on what they think are the important criteria instead of what the "normal people" themselves think is important. It's pretty elitist, and also missing the rather important point that a device's popularity is only partly based on its technical and ideological properties. Either way it'll be interesting to see what we end up with in a few years. Hopefully Android and whatever Microsoft comes up with will prove to be serious contenders so that we don't stagnate a la IE.
- Lazlo_Nibble 17y ago
  Again, there were more iPhones and iPod Touches sold in 2009 than there were netbooks. It looks to me like their position in the market has been pretty well cemented without opening the platform up for "ruinination".

jstevens85 17y ago

I'm growing less concerned about it actually. If you believe that the world is moving towards web apps, then what programs you can install on your device becomes irrelevant. Google Voice runs well as a web app, and the $30 unlimited AT&T 3G plan means that users can treat web apps the same way as a local app - you don't have to worry about bandwidth or availability. Compare iPhone OS to Google Chrome OS. I understand that the browser will be the only application that can be installed on Chrome OS. Why isn't Google receive equal (or deservedly more) criticism for restricting the freedoms of its potential users and developers?

jamesbritt 17y ago

"Unlike Microsoft who required some hefty developer fees." You only had to pay for the developer tools you decided to use, and I don't recall VB[3|5|5] being all that expensive. But it's been awhile since I even considered it. Assorted Borland products may have been less expensive. Nowadays there are free .Net development tools. But I recall Microsoft as standing out in the help the give people wanting t build for their platform, back when I would still code VB for money.